reply_to_comment

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden and does so well: auto-backup slots, backup=False's exact effect, atomic validated save, and refusal for Word-open documents. This goes beyond what the input schema or parameter names reveal.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three short clauses pack purpose, backup behavior, and a hard failure condition with no filler. The purpose is front-loaded, so an agent scanning the first words immediately understands the action.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Covers action, required input provenance, backup side effects, failure condition, and atomicity. Since an output schema exists, return-value documentation is not required, and no critical information is missing for selecting and invoking this tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description compensates for the nontrivial parameters: comment_id must come from get_comments and backup=False only skips rotation, not backup itself. Remaining parameters like text, author, and file_path are reasonably self-explanatory from their names and defaults.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Description opens with a specific verb+object ('Add a threaded reply') and scopes it to an existing comment, with comment_id provenance pointing to get_comments. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling comment tools like add_comment, resolve_comment, and delete_comment.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

States the prerequisite comment_id source and gives operational conditions: backup semantics and refusal when Word has the document open. It does not explicitly name the alternative use case for add_comment, so full when/when-not guidance is missing.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.